Turning their Backs on Jihad

[JoaMei]

BIN LADEN'S DISSIDENTS
Turning their Backs on Jihad

By Britta Sandberg
More and more prominent terrorists are defecting from the cause. The Egyptian theologian Dr. Fadl is the best known, but many others are likewise reconsidering. Experts see it as a delayed reaction to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Noman Benotman walks into a restaurant on Park Lane, the exclusive, minimalist sort of place that is currently all the rage in London. People in business suits converse in hushed tones at nearby tables. Benotman, wearing an orange polo shirt and a gray checked blazer, fits in perfectly.

Pictures:

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,33330,00.html

Benotman, a 41-year-old man from Libya, was once a jihadist. He fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and it was in those days, which some would later romanticize as heroic, that he met Osama bin Laden. Benotman says that he was once adept at using an AK-47, and that he remembers making out the faces of Soviet helicopter pilots before shooting them down.
After the Soviet army withdrew in disgrace from Kabul and Kandahar, Benotman returned to his native Libya, where he became one of the leaders of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). The group, several hundred strong, sought to overthrow the regime of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, which they believed was corrupt and un-Islamic. Before Sept. 11, 2001, Benotman was an important figure in the expanding global network of terrorism.

Today he sits in a London restaurant and orders an espresso with a glass of water from a waiter dressed in a white uniform. He speaks with a flawless British accent.

Nothing Short of Spectacular

Benotman has just returned from Libya, where he is working on behalf of the Gadhafi regime, the same regime he hoped to oust only a decade ago. He has been assigned a very delicate task. His job is to convince imprisoned members of his former terrorist group to sign a peace treaty of sorts. He has traveled to Libya 25 times in the last 16 months, and his efforts are paying off. Now, he says, the document that will allow his former comrades to be reintegrated into society is as good as written -- and on the verge of being signed.

Under the agreement the terrorists, most of them in prison for many years, will renounce violence and the murder of civilians. It will also include a denial of recent al-Qaida claims that the LIFG has joined forces with the international terrorist organization. This is untrue, says Benotman, explaining that the Libyans distanced themselves from al-Qaida long ago. His new mission is anything but secretive. Arab television broadcaster Al-Jazeera recently reported on his trips to Libya -- a story about a former jihadist's attempt to bring about peace, after all, is nothing short of spectacular.
Libya is not the only place where efforts to part ways with al-Qaida and its founders are underway. Almost seven years after the attacks of Sept. 11 and 10 years after bin Laden and his second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, founded the "International Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders," the organization is beginning to show cracks.

If one imagines al-Qaida as experts have characterized it -- as a system of terror franchises with branches worldwide -- then there is clearly an uprising taking place among many branch managers. They are distancing themselves from the icons of terror, and from their goals and methods. So far, it apparently remains an internal process, disputes within the various groups that have been smoldering for some time and are now rising to the surface. And there is little to indicate a causal connection between this development and the United States-led war on global terrorism.

His Utmost to Kill

Counterterrorism experts from Europe and the United States met in Florence in May to discuss the current state of affairs. Just how many terrorists remain engaged in the war against the West was a matter for debate. But most of the experts believed that bin Laden still exerts direct influence over a widely diverse group of terrorist organizations, both as a symbolic figurehead and as a financier of training camps and attacks around the world. And all at the conference agreed that bin Laden himself remains determined to do his utmost to kill as many people in the West as possible.

The al-Qaida leadership is still believed to be hiding out in the mountainous, inaccessible border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. From their isolated location, bin Laden and Zawahiri compose periodic messages to their followers around the world, often seeking to portray the dissidents as creatures of the hated West. The Egyptian doctor Zawahiri, in particular, insists that renegades like Benotman have either been paid off by the West or tortured into compliance, and that Western intelligence agencies engage in propaganda to create divisions and uncertainty among his holy warriors.

But Zawahiri's messages, delivered by video or broadcast on the Internet, appear to be losing their effectiveness.

In late May, India's influential Deoband religious movement issued a fatwa against terrorism. In a joint proclamation at a meeting in New Delhi attended by representatives of the country's leading Islamic organizations, the groups stated: "It is the goal and purpose of Islam to extinguish all forms of terrorism and to disseminate the message of global peace. Those who use the Koran and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad to justify terror are merely upholding a lie."

The supreme mufti of the Deobandis and three envoys signed the document. "In terms of its theological significance, this is roughly the equivalent of a ruling by the Supreme Court in Washington," activist Javed Anand later said. The Deobandis, whose name is derived from a small city in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, once inspired and offered religious instruction to fighters in the Islamic world. Militant Pakistani groups, jihadists in Iraq and even the Taliban invoked the Deobandis for many years. But those days are now gone.

Former militants who have renounced jihad often begin to proselytize among their former comrades-in-arms. In late April, a handful of former members of the militant Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which was founded in Jordan in 1953 and eventually spread to about 40 countries, established a foundation to combat fundamentalism among Muslims in Europe.
Maajid Nawaz, 31, is the director of the new organization, known as the Quilliam Foundation. In his past, Nawaz helped develop secret terrorist cells in Pakistan and later in Denmark. He spent five years in an Egyptian prison, where he turned his back on radical Islam. The foundation was established in the British Museum, and when he gave his speech at the event, Nawaz was wearing a well-tailored Hugo Boss suit and his beard was neatly trimmed. "I turned away from Islamism," he said, "because I recognized it as the curse of Islam."

'Do Not Exceed the Limits'

This small rebellion within al-Qaida had its beginnings in May 2007, in the form of a fax received at the London-based Arab newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat. It was sent by one of the eminent authorities of al-Qaida, a man who was once bin Laden's mentor before he went from the Pakistani city of Peshawar to Afghanistan, and long before he became a shining light in the Islamic world. The man's name is Sayyid Imam al-Sharif. Like Zawahiri, Sharif is an Egyptian doctor, and he later competed with Zawahiri for bin Laden's favor. Sharif is better known under his nom de guerre, Dr. Fadl.

Ironically Dr. Fadl, 58, sent the fax from a prison in Cairo, where he has been serving a life sentence since 2004. He wrote that jihadism is reprehensible and that it violates the precepts of Islam and Shariah law. Killing people solely on the basis of their nationality is not in keeping with the Koran, he wrote, especially since the victims of such acts are often "innocent Muslims and non-Muslims." "Fight, on God's behalf, against those who fight you, but do not exceed the limits," the converted Dr. Fadl wrote.

A man once referred to as the "al-Qaida's chief ideologue," and one of the organization's founders, disassociating himself with al-Qaida, bin Laden and Zawahiri? It was a sensation, a turning point for the terrorist network.

"When I first read the fax, I thought that he must have been coerced," says Mohammed al-Shafey, an editor at the London-based Arab newspaper, which printed the document of renunciation. "Fadl was the brain, the think tank of jihad. Only later, when I read his new book, did I realize that he really meant what he wrote." Dr. Fadl wrote the book Shafey is referring to, in which he explains the reasons for his change of heart, in his prison cell and announced its completion in the fax he sent to London.

Dr. Fadl is not only seen as the brain of al-Qaida, but is also considered one of Zawahiri's mentors. Both men are surgeons and attended medical school in Cairo together. Zawahiri was one of thousands arrested in 1981 after former Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat was assassinated. Fadl fled to Pakistan and settled in Peshawar, where he treated wounded fighters from Afghanistan.
After completing a prison sentence in Cairo, Zawahiri went to Peshawar, then a magnet for Islamists. At that time, it was clear to the two men that Dr. Fadl was the superior intellect. He was said to have encyclopedic knowledge of the Koran.

On Aug. 11, 1988, in Peshawar, Fadl and Zawahiri met for the first time with a young Saudi Arabian named Osama bin Laden and a Palestinian named Abdullah Assam. The four men would later found al-Qaida, "the basis," as a fighting alliance against infidels, the West and the United States, after the collapse of the world's other superpower, the Soviet Union. Bin Laden had money and followers, while Fadl and Zawahiri had dreamed up the ideological underpinnings for jihad.

Fadl soon wrote something of a manual for jihadism. According to the document, holy war is the natural state of Islam and the "only way to end the domination of the infidels." With such a manifesto in his past, Fadl's renunciation of al-Qaida is not easily dismissed as insignificant.

Greatest Trial in its History

It is a heavy blow to bin Laden and Zawahiri when one of the founders of their network describes al-Qaida's ideology and the attacks of Sept. 11 as mistakes. "Dr. Fadl is fundamentally questioning their theological authority," says Lawrence Wright, who describes the history of al-Qaida in his book, "The Looming Tower." In a recent piece for the New Yorker, Wright wrote "Fadl repeatedly emphasizes that it is forbidden to kill civilians -- including Christians and Jews -- unless they are actively attacking Muslims." Wright believes that the terrorist organization faces the greatest challenge in its history.

Just how seriously Zawahiri took Fadl's pamphlet of renunciation is evident in the 200-page response he issued in March of this year, which was also published on the Internet. Zawahiri writes that he can only imagine Dr. Fadl's conversion to be the work of Arab intelligence agencies working in concert with the CIA, and that the document must have been written under duress.

"If you claim that these operations were illegal," al-Qaida's number two man writes, addressing Fadl directly, "then this must also apply to all operations conducted in Palestine." According to Zawahiri, Fadl has never questioned Palestinian attacks on Israelis.

Paul Cruickshank of New York University and terrorism expert Peter Bergen spent six months investigating the turmoil within al-Qaida. The two were the first to interview Noman Benotman, and they also spoke with other critics of the terror organization -- including Sheikh Salman al-Oudah. On the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, the Saudi went on the television channel MBS to publicly demand of bin Laden how many innocents had already been killed in the name of al-Qaida. Oudah also wanted to know how bin Laden planned to face the almighty with hundreds, even thousands, of innocent lives on his conscience.

"Al-Oudah is neither in prison nor is he suspected of being a friend of the Americans or a tool of the Saudi government," says Cruickshank. On the contrary: In 2004, the sheikh called on Iraqis to fight against the US occupiers in their country.

Cruickshank believes that, ironically enough, it was the Iraq war that delayed latent criticism of bin Laden and his concept of jihad. "What's emerging now has been simmering for a long time." The fact that American soldiers were occupying holy ground provided every major terrorist leader with a convenient justification for jihad in Iraq.

There is no doubt that al-Qaida remains an unscrupulous and dangerous terrorist organization, even if it has lost some of its influence in Iraq. In Pakistan and Afghanistan, its core countries, it is enjoying renewed support. Allied with the newly strengthened Taliban, al-Qaida is doing its part to seriously jeopardize the regimes in Islamabad and Kabul. "In the long term, however, they will face problems as a result of the ideological debate," says Peter Bergen. "They are already having trouble finding recruits in Europe today."

Wearing a Suit for Friday Prayers

This shift in the general mood that experts like Bergen believe is happening in Europe is clearly in evidence at London's Al-Tawhid Mosque. Two of the presumed attackers who planned, and failed, to commit attacks in London and Glasgow in late June 2007 were frequent visitors to the mosque. "But now people have had enough of Islam constantly being equated with terrorism," says Usama Hasan, the mosque's 36-year-old imam.

These days Hasan wears a suit when leading Friday prayers. "I am a Muslim living in the West, and I want everyone to see it." Hasan, himself a former fighter in Afghanistan and member of a fundamentalist group, now preaches the renunciation of violence and condemns terrorism.

"I have the feeling that things are slowly changing," says former Libyan terrorist Benotman, referring to the small series of prominent renegades. He was once so well known among jihadists that he dealt directly with bin Laden. That was in the summer of 2000, when roughly 200 people representing groups from many countries came together in Kandahar. Benotman was living in a guesthouse that bin Laden owned.
The Libyans, fearing retaliation against their own country, were opposed to the crusade against the United States that was discussed at such great length in Kandahar. According to Benotman, even Taliban leader Mullah Omar was in favor of attacking Israel instead of the United States. "We told bin Laden at the time that he could not force his strategy on all Arabs," the Libyan recalls today. "His response was that there was an operation underway that he could no longer stop, and that the fighters were ready to act." Bin Laden was referring to the attackers of Sept. 11.

After the attacks on America, the Libyans parted ways with al-Qaida. Several Libyan newspapers published Benotman's open letter to Zawahiri last year. He has been living in London in recent years. He says that he has never been in prison, neither in Libya nor anyplace else.

Then the elegantly dressed man, a one-time jihadist, walks out of the chic restaurant and disappears into the Green Park Underground station.

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,565750,00.html

[RoccoKlein]

i just got this through email.....via the Jamestown Foundation's Terrorism Focus newsletter....
it basically says that the recantations do not really mean anything since the driving force behind jihad is salafist doctrine, which is endemic to saudi arabia, therefore not an aberration.....
Saudi Salafism a Stronger Force in Islamist Militancy than Recanting Clerics

By Michael Scheuer

In the past month, the media have reported an attack on India’s embassy in Kabul, killing 41; an attack on the Red Mosque in Islamabad, killing 10; an attack on the U.S. consulate in Istanbul, killing six; a raid by the Taliban and its allies on a U.S. firebase in Afghanistan’s Konar Province that killed nine American soldiers and a July 15 suicide bombing in Iraq that killed 28 Iraqi military recruits. While these events seem grim, fear not. The Western media continue to argue that victory is close over al-Qaeda and its allies. “Cheer up. We’re Winning this War on Terrorism,” says the London Times; “Turning Their Backs on Terror,” claims Der Spiegel; “Al-Qaeda’s Vietnam,” trumpets the New York Post (The Times, June 27; Der Spiegel, July 14; New York Post, June 17). How does one reconcile the former events with the latter analysis? And how pertinent is either to assessing the strength of Islamist extremism?

The war-against-Islamists-is-won media boom began in April, with articles by Western journalists claiming al-Qaeda is being destroyed by the recantations of former Islamist theoreticians (New Republic, June 11; New Yorker, May 26). The recantations, it was argued, are turning Muslims from al-Qaeda and its allies and persuading them to accept U.S. foreign policy in the Muslim world and life under repressive police-state regimes. That the recanters’ words drew attention from Islamists is clear, but the argument that the recantations—delivered from Egypt’s prisons and the Saudi police state—spelled doom for Islamism seems overdrawn. A prominent Salafist cleric, Shaykh Husayn Bin Mahmud, put the point nicely. The recanting “is just acting forced by the prison guards,” Bin-Mahmud wrote. “Tell [the recanter] that we would listen to him when he tells us to retract when he is standing between Usama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri in Afghanistan, enjoying his freedom and safety and the safety of his family. How can we listen to him when we know he is in Husni [Mubarak’s] prison and knowing how Muslim prisoners in particular are treated?” (alhanein.com, November 25, 2007). Ayman al-Zawahiri put it more logically, asking: “Why is the jihad against the Russians in Afghanistan an individual obligation, whereas in Iraq today, it is one of the cardinal sins?” (Al-Sahab Media Production Organization, December 16, 2007).

The recantations making a splash in the Western media are part of a bigger project conducted by several Arab states—led by Saudi Arabia—to make the United States and its allies believe Islamism’s strength is ebbing. Their campaign is made easier, of course, because the West desperately wants to believe such claims. The Arab regimes, in fact, built a cottage industry of recanting; earlier in this decade, Riyadh ran television shows featuring recanting jihadi clerics that earned the mocking name of “the series of repentance” (alhanein.com, November 25, 2007). Today, the Libyan regime is about to join the recanting caravan. Saudi-controlled media in Europe, for example, are publishing teasers about the coming renunciation of “armed violence” by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—long an al-Qaeda ally. Its now slickly groomed spokesman, Nu’man bin Uthman, says the group’s imprisoned leaders will soon publicly oppose violence (Al-Sharq al-Awsat, July 7).

Beyond recanting clerics, the Saudis, the Egyptians, and the Yemenis have trumpeted “re-education programs” they are running to “rehabilitate” captured Islamist fighters, while incarcerated, right-thinking, regime-paid clerics tell the former mujahideen that “religious deviants” led them astray and are taught regime-approved interpretations of Islam. They are also prepared to reenter society with classes in trades, art and music. This program of what the West might call “tough love” is being hailed by Riyadh, Cairo, and Sana as a success, these claims meshing with the West’s faith in reforming flawed human beings by therapy [1]. There are suspicions that re-educated graduates are released on condition they go to Iraq or Afghanistan to fight infidels, which was the method the Saudi and other Arab regimes used to unload firebrands during anti-Soviet jihad.

Finally, Riyadh has gone the extra mile to apply soothing eyewash to Western eyes by having its clerical hirelings claim—Quranically speaking—that black is white, as well as by engaging in a startling ecumenicalism: “Aggressions against Muslims and occupation of [their] land,” the kingdom’s Grand Mufti, Sheikh Abdul-Aziz Al al-Sheikh, said in July, “cannot be a justification for explosions…” Later in his statement, the Grand Mufti let slip the main point of his message, which was to protect the al-Saud family, not the West. “Obeying the Muslim ruler without sedition,” al-Sheikh said, “is a basic principle of Muslims who follow the path of the Prophet” (*******, July 3).

Later, Riyadh had the senior religious bureaucrat Shaykh Saleh al-Laheedan, chairman of the Saudi Arabian Supreme Judiciary Council, attack bin Laden: “Osama is a preacher of evil,” said Shaykh al-Laheedan. “If a man performs prayers in [the] night and then disobeys the rulers of his country, how can he be a good man? No doubt, such people are sinners.” Again, this cleric’s main message was that the Sauds must be obeyed (Gulf News, July 10). The Saudis also are calling for more cooperation among world religions and are mulling the opening of a Christian church in the kingdom. This month it even sent King Abdullah—who met Pope Benedict XVI last year—to open an interfaith conference in Madrid that was organized by the Saudis’ Muslim World League (AFP, July 14).

Just as reality is juxtaposed with over-optimism above—Islamist attacks contrasted with claims al-Qaeda and its allies are losing—the Saudi-led Arab campaign to make the West see a mirage of a fading-Islamist threat is marred by reality. In Egypt, for example, President Mubarak’s security forces continue to harass and arrest members of the Muslim Brotherhood. In Yemen, President Salih is confronting attacks from both al-Qaeda-in-Yemen and hostile Shia tribes, and it is clear the Islamist tide in Saudi Arabia is not receding. So far in 2008, Saudi security services have arrested more than 700 Islamists suspected of planning attacks on oil, security, and industrial facilities and Riyadh is forming a 30,000-man force to protect these targets. In addition, Saudi officials admit they have neither won the ideological battle with “religious deviants” nor stopped terrorist fundraising; they also say Islamist cells exist across most of the country. Adding to internal frictions are simmering animosities between Sunnis and Shias, after leading Sunni scholars in June ascribed “infidel principles” to Shia doctrine (Saudi Gazette, June 27; Al-Sharq al-Awsat, June 18; *******, July 2).

Again, how can the foregoing contradictions be reconciled, and an assessment made about the strength and future viability of the Islamist threat? Perhaps the best way to get a handle on this issue is to understand that much of the above—the attacks, the recanters, the re-education camps, Riyadh’s ecumenical outreach—is a diversion from the key variable in the future vitality of Islamist militancy: The doctrine of Salafism and its continuing proliferation. Bin Laden and his allies are overwhelmingly Salafist; men and women who profess an austere, semi-martial brand of Sunni Islam based on the Quran, the Sunnah and the traditions of the “pious ancestors,” the first four generations of Islamic leaders. Salafism is Saudi Arabia’s state religion; it is taught at all levels of its school system to Saudis and others who come from abroad to study or are the children of immigrant Muslim workers and it is the faith Riyadh exports to all areas of the world via a large, well funded proselytizing program staffed by Salafi clerics educated in the kingdom. Salafism is the engine of contemporary jihad; its base is in Saudi Arabia; and no amount of jihadist recanting or damning by the “king’s clerics” will stunt Salafi jihadism as long as the doctrine is taught and continues to grow in popularity:

In Kuwait, followers of the Salafi current won a majority of parliamentary seats in the 17 May [2008] elections. In Jordan, the Muslim Brotherhood elected a [Salafi] conservative, Hammam Said, to be their general guide. He is the first Jordanian of Palestinian origin to lead the group since it was founded in 1946. In Egypt, [Salafi] conservatives running the Muslim Brotherhood show no intention of allowing a new generation of younger reformers to take over. In Palestine, Hamas’s hawks have been consolidating their position since the movement seized Gaza a year ago, while “pragmatists” are being increasingly sidelined. Wherever you look in the Arab world, Islamist conservatism of the brand known as “Salafist” is gaining ground while moderates seem to be running out of steam. Even regional television stations seem more interested in conservatives than in mainstream or opposition moderates. Also, many social institutions have fallen into the hands of the Salafis.

Recently, the Salafist trend has widened its appeal to the Arab public. No longer confining themselves to conventional preaching places, such as the mosque and home gatherings, conservatives are using hi-tech methods, including blogging and Facebook. I have met a few young Salafist men who haven’t the slightest interest in updating the content of their beliefs, but nonetheless are computer savvy and networking online all the time. The moment has come for their brand of Salafist discourse, they believe. And they are using the latest technology to connect with thousands of their generation (Al-Ahram Weekly, July 10-16).


As Salafism spreads, it is vital that the West sees that the Salafism taught in the Muslim world is not an aberrant form of Islam; it is a respected—indeed, honored—set of beliefs and is being taught accurately. A 2004 essay mounted on the Saudi dissident website Al-Hijaz makes this point; the essay merits more attention than it has received. The anonymous author writes that the Salafi mujahideen are a huge problem for the Saudi and other Arab governments because they are the true voice of that version of Islam. While the regimes may be stronger in military terms, the author argues they will ultimately be defeated by the Salafists:

In our opinion, the Saudi government is losing on the ideological front, although it may win temporarily on the front of confrontation by security means. The reason is that the dominant ideology feeding the current of violence is an indigenous ideology, not an intruder into the kingdom. It is an ideology that the official religious establishment espouses and that it considers a sound standard for the entire world, except when it comes to applying it to the Saudi case and to the al-Saud family. Thus the graduates of the Salafi school, who have embarked on violence have added nothing to this ideology; they simply have applied it. They have been honest in using it and faithful to their belief… It is not correct to maintain that the ideas held by the [Salafi] practitioners of violence are eccentric or [applying a] false doctrine. In fact they are the prevailing view among the Saudi Salafi religious current in the kingdom. If members of the official current use this ideology, it is called sound; if the practitioners of violence use it, it is called eccentric (Al-Hijaz, August 15, 2004).

The author warns that seeing Salafists as deviants is self-defeating because their violence is “authenticated … on the basis of texts, ****ouncements and fatwas by senior scholars. These are clear texts subject to no ambiguity or misreading” (Al-Hijaz, August 15, 2004). The answer to whether al-Qaeda’s ideology can be defeated is not, therefore, to be found in recanting clerics and reeducated militants paraded by the Arab regimes. It will be answered by their willingness to remove Salafism from schools and missionary activities. To date, the evidence is that Salafism has over the last decades—and especially since 9/11—experienced a Saudi-sponsored expansion from the Arab heartland to rest of the Muslim world.

Michael Scheuer served in the CIA for 22 years before resigning in 2004. He served as the Chief of the bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. He is the once anonymous author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and the newly released Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq. Dr. Scheuer is a Senior Fellow with The Jamestown Foundation.

Notes

1. The chief of the Saudi Senior Islamic Scholars Commission, Shaykh Abdullah al-Motlaq, recently briefed the media on the “success of the ongoing counseling program,” and asserted that “Saudi scholars are in the forefront of those carrying out [the] intensive campaign against extremists in the kingdom” (Gulf News, July 10).

[Laworkerbee]

Benotman, a 41-year-old man from Libya, was once a jihadist. He fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and it was in those days, which some would later romanticize as heroic, that he met Osama bin Laden. Benotman says that he was once adept at using an AK-47, and that he remembers making out the faces of Soviet helicopter pilots before shooting them down.

Sure you were Haji, sure you were.....


On Aug. 11, 1988, in Peshawar, Fadl and Zawahiri met for the first time with a young Saudi Arabian named Osama bin Laden and a Palestinian named Abdullah Assam. The four men would later found al-Qaida, "the basis," as a fighting alliance against infidels

Incorrect Mr reporter man, it is known as "the base", you would think after all this time they could get that right :roll:

[wigon]

Wow... first off I am deeply disappointed in the second article's author who I had respected as having a pretty good handle on understanding Al-Qaeda. His problem is that I don't think he understands Islam very well. I would love to have a chat with Mr. Scheuer. If I happen to cross paths with him I will be sure to do this. He makes alot of allegations such as that "...there are suspicions that re-educated graduates are released on condition they go to Iraq or Afghanistan to fight infidels, which was the method the Saudi and other Arab regimes used to unload firebrands during anti-Soviet jihad." That's a very strong accusation without putting forth who has such suspicions and how strong the evidence is. Jihad IS allowed in Islam. For sure there is NO mincing of words. Islam is NOT a pacifist religion by any means. If a Muslim country is attacked by an invader, Muslims have the duty to fight the invader. Sounds horrific doesn't it? Well if you read the Geneva Convention all sovereign countries have the right to fight an invader. Yes I know there are all the rules about uniforms and what not. However we didn't have any qualms about helping the French Resistance "Fight for Freedom" against Nazi occupiers during WWII. Granted we are not Nazis and I am not trying to say that America can be compared to Nazis…but we are invaders and occupiers.
There is a simple answer to Ayman al-Zawahiri asking: "Why is the jihad against the Russians in Afghanistan an individual obligation, whereas in Iraq today, it is one of the cardinal sins?" (Al-Sahab Media Production Organization, December 16, 2007).
Mr. al-Zawahiri, as a Muslim, should know that intention is EXTREMELY important in Islamic law. Do Iraqis have the right to fight the United States? Technically according to international law and Islamic law: Yes. I am saying this as a former US Army soldier who also has friends in the US military serving in Iraq. However, the Jihadist must sit down and think whether this in the long run benefits 1. Muslims and 2. Iraqis. Will they have greater freedom of religion then before because of the American invasion? Yes. Are their laws now closer to being in accordance to Shariat Law due to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein? Yes...much more so then many other so-called "Islamic states". So in essence, the US military has done more to actually promote Islam rather then to destroy Islam.


I must state that the first letter offered ample evidence that the anti-terrorist reversal in thought is indeed not a simple product of coercion. De-programming? Most likely yes. Coercion by forcing such ideas against one's will? No. These are much more then just freed or imprisoned terrorists saying that they have had a change of heart. Many of those quoted in the first letter are running around freely today and could easily go hide and go back to Jihad in Pakistan, Sudan, or other war-torn Islamic countries.
I have done my own dialog with Salafis and have seen a definite change of belief on Islamic forums where unlike many Americans who enter such forums ranting against them, I treated them with respect. By engaging them in deep theological discussions and giving them alternative sources of Islamic interpretation that they were not aware of, slow but surely I saw changes in their attitudes. No whether the change was long-term I don't know as I have zero funding from anyone nor any security clearances (or at least assurances that I won't be arrested) to go and meet face to face with these extremists. If it got that clearance and funding, I would in a heart beat. I would love to experiment with these tactics at Guantanomo, but so far no interest from anyone with any influence to get me over there.

There is no doubt in my mind especially when Salafis are put around pious Muslims who follow a path of non-violence or non-violent resistance, that their hearts do change. When you are around someone who acts with nobility, dignity and restraint, it really has an impact on anyone. I've seen this with some Salafi oriented Arabs when they start hanging around devout Turkish Sufi Muslims. All the angry rhetoric from their mosque and Salafi books starts to ring a bit hollow when they are around Muslims that are in a constant state of self-awareness struggling to make themselves better Muslims. These Sufis do this by helping others in need (regardless of religion), controlling their nafs (carnal desires) without going to extremes, and practicing the central pillars of Islam with sincerity and complete discipline.
It's much like a hypocrite Christian who suddenly finds himself amongst Christians who actually practice what they preach on a daily basis.

Alot also is about controlling the symbols of the religion and the romanticism that Al-Qaeda likes to conjure up. Salafism is not "indigenous" as Mr. Scheuer calls it. It is going back a few hundred years in Saudi Arabia, however it is not a central teaching of Islam traditionally. The closest is the Hanbali madhhab (school of thought) in Islam. However Salafis, while indeed grounding some of their arguments within traditional Islam, still take an extremely rigid interpretation of past Islamic doctrine that, at the time, was not always so rigid and was subject to constant re-interpretation to adapt to the times. What was most important was that it remained in the spirit of Shariat. I don't have them handy with me but there are hadiths that authenticate this practice and it is in fact clearly Sunah (in the way of the prophet mohammed PBUH) to be flexible with Islamic rulings which often shifted radically. Furthermore Salafis have a problem in that they cherry pick traditional scholars from periods of heavy warfare such as their foremost inspiration, Ibn Tammiyah. Ibn Tammiyah preached at a time when Baghdad was sacked by the Mongol hordes and the Islamic nations were in ruins and fighting amongst each other. He lived in essentially a miserable time of hypocrisy and power struggles. Hence his highly militaristic interpretations of Jihad and his emphasis on the concept of Takfir (proclaiming hypocrite Muslims as non-believers and thus subject to attack by "true" Muslims).
What modern Salafis don't like to talk about today is that Ibn Tammiyah was also well educated in the school of Tasawuuf (Sufism) which modern Salafi's do not recognize as a true Islamic path. They very often eliminate chapters from Ibn Tamiyyah's books devoted to Sufism and portray his fatwas against Sufi extremists as meant for all Sufi practices.
So a deep understanding of Salafi theology is extremely important if we hope to change things at the heartland of Islam in Saudi Arabia. Already many Muslims groups are doing this and I think that many Salafis are becoming more flexible in their understandings of Islam and how it relates to the modern world.


For those of you who ever have the unpleasant experience of running into a Islamic extremist, if you remember anything, simply challenge them with this: Ask them to find for you a single Quran verse or Hadith verse that says that you may kill innocent women and children amongst non-believers. If they believe in Al-Qaeda's cause and methods and if they believe in the methods of Hamas of targeting civilians, then tell them not to worry about your judgement, but to worry about the judgement of Allah almighty. That in my experience ALWAYS makes them stop and think very very deeply if they are truly religious. The truly dangerous ones are the ones who commit terrorism purely for revenge, fame, money, or hatred, and who are not particularly religious. The truly religious ones, believe it or not, are the ones easiest to deal with if you know how to talk to them with sincerity, respect, and (yes I know it sounds so hippy-like and liberal...but also Christian) with love.

Wigon

[Calanen]

Islam is NOT a pacifist religion by any means. If a Muslim country is attacked by an invader, Muslims have the duty to fight the invader. Sounds horrific doesn't it? Well if you read the Geneva Convention all sovereign countries have the right to fight an invader. Yes I know there are all the rules about uniforms and what not.


It's a bit more problematic than that. Have a read of the thread 'Confonting Islamization in the West'. There is a strong doctrine within Islam of spreading the faith by conquering other infidel countries and religions with jihad. Jihad is not just defensive.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=137701

Its a long thread, but hopefully covers some interesting ground for you.

[Macs.]

Incorrect Mr reporter man, it is known as "the base", you would think after all this time they could get that right :roll:

I doubt there is only one meaning for it.

As far as I know, there is no direct translation for it, as with many arabic words/sentences. It just means something in the sense of "the base", "the foundation", "the database". I actually read once that it literally supposedly stands for "The Database"; as in really the computer file with Names of Mujaeddin that the CIA recruited back then.

[wigon]

It's a bit more problematic than that. Have a read of the thread 'Confonting Islamization in the West'. There is a strong doctrine within Islam of spreading the faith by conquering other infidel countries and religions with jihad. Jihad is not just defensive.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=137701

Its a long thread, but hopefully covers some interesting ground for you.


Uuugh.... yeah I've debated that issue before. It's a looong arguement and I'm not sure I have the energy to debate that issue there but I'll check it out.
In a nutshell, I think radicalism spreading in the West is a problem. However there are very few studies done that really map out the threat and levels of radical Islamic activity.
That and the idea of Dar al Harb was invented at a later date in Islamic history and was not originally part of Islam. It was invented by later scholars in an attempt to justify warfare. Whether they were right or not depends again on a Muslim's school of Islamic thought (madhhab).

There are also ways to counter the idea (spread chiefly by Ibn Tammiyah) of infinite war with non-Muslims until the day of judgement.

1. Ask Muslims if there exists a single TRUE Islamic nation today. If not, then why are they not fighting to make a true Islamic nation in THEIR OWN COUNTRIES???? Maybe because here they have freedom of religious expression???? And in their countries....they get shot, tortured, and/or put in prison.

2. Ask these radicals if making non-Muslims suspicious of Muslims truly a way to spread their religion and if forcing Islamic rule upon non-Muslims is how you convert people? Ask them if they would like to crush all freedom of thought and expresson that developed the civilization and economies that they are enjoying due to a break from similar Catholic religious laws in medival Europe. Ask them if the Taliban's Shariat based government in Afghanistan was the ideal? If not ask them what was wrong with it. If they say yes, then ask them why Muslims did not all go to Afghanistan since it was such an Islamic paradise. Why not immigrate to Saudi Arabia? Or if Shi'a...to Iran?

3. Ask the what the Qu'ran says about why he created people differently? (hint: It says so that we may understand each other).

4. Ask them if the world has ever shared one religion? If they say yes, ask them for proofs in the Qu'ran other than Adam and Eve.

5. Finally ask them if Islam teaches to oppress people around the world and force them to abide by Islamic laws that they find oppressive. Ask them if that is what Allah wishes them to do. Then if so ask them how they will prevent countries that do not want this from protecting themselves with nuclear weapons and thus destroying humanity? Does Allah want us to use nuclear weapons? Does Allah support genocide of people who are trying protect themselves from Islamic military domination?


Anyways, I'm not saying the problem doesn't exist, but again, through Islamic based counter-propaganda and the development of strong anti-extremist Islamic institutions, such a problem can be dealt with.
I might also add, that the problem is NOT a threat in the United States where the Islamic community is tiny compared to Europe....and for the most part very well behaved. England for example has WAAAAAAy too much tolerance for radicals and ironically greater freedom of speech then America as they allow radical Muslims to openly call for terrorist actions against the West. But aside from that, its not a threat here in the US simply because we have vastly different immigration patterns. The only threat we have is that soon our grandchildren will all be a shade of brown due to the massive hispanic immigration into the US. That's not a bad thing. Better food, hotter women! And we'll have alot more Catholics...well bad if you hate Catholics. lol :)

Edit- wow I read that post you made on the link you sent...and wow.... I don't even know where to begin on the tons and tons of massive erroneous generalizations and assumptions that article stated. It is fear mongoring at its worse and shows an extremely poor understanding by the author of the diversity of Islamic thought in the world.
An example is the call to end interfaith dialog. That person obviously never took part in interfaith dialog. I've been involved in several groups, most of which have been very successful and nobody had to compromise anything. Alot of the Muslims there learned a hell of alot about Judaism for example as we had some extremely knowledgable Jewish members. We also always shared a dinner together made of homemade helal/kosher food and sometimes vegetarian if we had Hindus or vegetarian Buddhists present. The successful groups were all about understanding each other's faith and the similarities rather then arguing about the differences and who was right or wrong. Those who tried to do that and start drama were nicely asked to leave or just ignored as they came there for the wrong reasons.
It never ceases to bug the crap out of me when people are so weak in their faith (or non-belief in any faith) that they are terrified about having dialog and learning the beliefs of Muslims directly from Muslims themselves. That to me is cowardly and willful ignorance that leads to the gross generalizations and potentially dangerous assumptions made by that author and those like him and the people at that symposium.
The same goes in reverse regarding Islamic extremists who are terrified when it comes to sitting down with Christians and Jews to talk about faith in the one God of Abraham.

Wigon

[LaoSexMachine]

Good read. Thanks for sharing.

[Calanen]

Anyways, I'm not saying the problem doesn't exist, but again, through Islamic based counter-propaganda and the development of strong anti-extremist Islamic institutions, such a problem can be dealt with.

Not much of that. There seems to be divergence about the methods (whether terror or creeping incrementalism stealth jihad), but not about the aims (destruction of the West's institutions, beliefs, and governments.)



I might also add, that the problem is NOT a threat in the United States where the Islamic community is tiny compared to Europe....and for the most part very well behaved.


Always is until they have the numbers. When there are sufficient numbers to challenge the 'others'...watch out.

You cannot on the one hand be believed as a religion of tolerance and peace, when in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, wherever Islam is in control - there is no tolerance for any other religion.

The stealth jihad is still a big threat to the United States, as is the fighting jihad. 9/11 was committed by 19 guys. You dont need many to join the jihad to have a really big problem. And the biggest problem you have is terror financing in the USA, at the moment.

That's why in a way, you better hope you keep getting Mexicans running across the border and having babies. That way you've got Catholics and population growth. No jihad from Mexicans.

Muslims tend to have far more children that westerners thats just a demographic fact, so pretty soon they outnumber you. And in a democracy, the majority decides. And what will a majority of muslims decide for you infidel?



England for example has WAAAAAAy too much tolerance for radicals and ironically greater freedom of speech then America as they allow radical Muslims to openly call for terrorist actions against the West. But aside from that, its not a threat here in the US simply because we have vastly different immigration patterns. The only threat we have is that soon our grandchildren will all be a shade of brown due to the massive hispanic immigration into the US. That's not a bad thing. Better food, hotter women! And we'll have alot more Catholics...well bad if you hate Catholics. lol :-)



Dont worry about Catholics.

[wigon]

Not much of that. There seems to be divergence about the methods (whether terror or creeping incrementalism stealth jihad), but not about the aims (destruction of the West's institutions, beliefs, and governments.)



Always is until they have the numbers. When there are sufficient numbers to challenge the 'others'...watch out.

You cannot on the one hand be believed as a religion of tolerance and peace, when in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, wherever Islam is in control - there is no tolerance for any other religion.

The stealth jihad is still a big threat to the United States, as is the fighting jihad. 9/11 was committed by 19 guys. You dont need many to join the jihad to have a really big problem. And the biggest problem you have is terror financing in the USA, at the moment.

That's why in a way, you better hope you keep getting Mexicans running across the border and having babies. That way you've got Catholics and population growth. No jihad from Mexicans.

Muslims tend to have far more children that westerners thats just a demographic fact, so pretty soon they outnumber you. And in a democracy, the majority decides. And what will a majority of muslims decide for you infidel?



Dont worry about Catholics.


Again, where you have very large miniority Muslim populations in Europe you do not see the majority of Muslims screaming for Shariat law.
The goal of Islam is not to destroy all Western institutions. That is a extreme Al-Qaeda type belief. A massive number of Western institutions have foundations in Eastern and often Islamic origins or Greek/Roman origins that were found to be of great value to Islamic civilizaton during some of its more enlightened periods. Otherwise they would not have been preserved by Arab scholars. Yes I know things weren't perfect in those days and they still did alot of very nasty things to Jews and Christians back then but vice-vera Christians did a lot of nasty things to Muslims back then as well....kinda like today. Things haven't changed much.

At any rate, let me give you an example of where "Western Institutions" that you claim are being wiped out by Muslims are in fact being built upon and utilized vastly better then us Westerners. Banking and Western style capitalism. Look at the UAE. The UAE is perhaps the model for a modern Islamic society. Barely any oil in that region. It's all good ol' Western educated Arabs building that empire. Saudi Arabia and other hardcore Islamic Arab states are likewise doing the same.
However you seem to forget that most Muslims are not Arab. Ever been to Indonesia? That country has the largest Muslim population in the world. Do they oppress non-Muslims? No. How do I know? Because I lived there for 2 1/2 years in Yogyakarta, central Java and travelled all over Java, the main island. Again.... a very modernized Islamic nation that values deeply its historical mutli-religious heritage. Aside from a few idiots on Java and a few Muslim vs. Christian issues on smaller islands (they have thousands of islands), there has not been a major problem since the invason of Iraq. I have Chrstian missionary friends who still live there and who still practice their faith and are allowed to minister to even a Muslim who goes to them and is interested. Bibles are allowed to be imported into the country. I went to open churches and buddhist temples there...no problem. They had a short lived rise in fundamentalists out of the city of Solo (just North of where I lived) but that was very wisely put down in a relatively peaceful manner. Westerners were not the only ones shocked by the violence against tourists in Bali (and in Jakarta). Tourism is a massive part of their economy so the average Muslim Indonesian did not take kindly to these extremists. Gradually they were imprisoned and many were re-edjucated in Islamic theology and de-programmed of their extremist Al-Qaeda brain-washing.

Muslims have enough problems trying to get Shariat Law in their own countries let alone Europe. Do you honestly think your average Westernized Muslim is going to want to obliterate his entire way of living and the culture he now calls home? I spend alot of time around 2nd and 3rd generation Muslim youth at several university MSA's (Muslim Student Associations) and what I find is a dynamic, but thoroughly American young Muslim generation. Do they want more morality and ethics addressed? YES! Do they want to blow up everything capitalist? Hell no. Plus to do so would be against their religion since their prophet was a capitalist as he helped his first wife run a massive trading company. Salafi's don't like to talk about it, but he actually worked for his wife before he married her. So he worked for a woman. There that is anothe aspect of Islam that Salafis hate.... Women can run corporations and any business they want...and they don't have to share their profit with the husband.

At any rate regarding Muslim youth in America.... what I've found is that they are profoundly interested in developing a unique American Islamic identity. They are not interested in following their grandparent's or parents "old country" cultural practices that are often more tribal rather then Islamic. America, compared to France for example, also has done a much better job of integrating Muslims into our society. Rarely do I meet poor Muslims. Here they tend to do quite well....in France you have massive ghettos of Muslim immigrants where the seeds of discontent are sown.

What our media does not talk about AT ALL (aside from the much hated liberal media like the PBS Bill Moyers show) is the role that globalization plays into a lot of the anti-Western attitudes. From my own studies I've found that many of these extremists are extremely well educated in the economics of globalization which plays a very large role in their hatred for the United States. Quite honestly, alot of these extremists understand globalizaton better then the average American who is absolutely clueless unless they took a college coarse in international economics or a political science coarse on globalization. It's really quite sad when I talk to a Congressman about global economic issues that effect our national security and he doesn't understand what the hell I'm talking about.... very VERY depressing.

Anyways... if you really fear Muslims, like I said.... if you talk to a Muslim online or in person, ask them those questions I mentioned above in my previous post and you'll be fine.
Remember one of the primary rules of war: "Know your enemy" This doesn't mean "Make assumptions based on limited knowledge about your enemy." It means going out and speaking to him/her face to face and understanding them as a fellow human being through their eyes and understanding through their words how they see the world. Those who do not have this ability should stay out of politics. I personally don't need narrow-minded and willfully ignorant politicians to screw up my country. I sure as hell don't need them to protect me from terrorists. I have my mind, tongue, and if needed, my guns and body armor and military training to protect myself.

That's one big reason why I love this country and intend to stay here and protect it from.... as my oath I took in the Army stated: "All enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC."

By the way, I was raised Catholic and I'm half hispanic so no problems there. However today I'm theist (I believe in God, but not organized religion). Almost as good as Mexican food is Middle Eastern food...hmm.... humus, falafel, and schwarmas!!!! Yummy!
Pass the shisha pipe Ali baba!


Wigon

[Calanen]

Anyways... if you really fear Muslims, like I said.... if you talk to a Muslim online or in person, ask them those questions I mentioned above in my previous post and you'll be fine.


Its not a question of fear. It's a question of resolving a problem. Does a fireman have to ask, perhaps I am too afraid of fire?

Whether I go into politics or not, we will see. The government in Indonesia is moderate. If a jihadi government gets in, God help us. There have also been plenty of christians hacked up in fighting in Indonesia.

There is not a lot of point debating specifics with you however, I think.

Have a read of this book, just a read...you can say, its all bs, i hate the guy whatever..but take into account these things and then make up your mind. If you're short on dough, send me a PM and Ill mail it too you.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260131/ref=ase_robertspencer-20/103-1603172-8127010?v=glance&s=books

He's got a new one coming out too (which will no doubt earn him a few more death threats):

http://www.amazon.com/Stealth-Jihad-Radical-Subverting-America/dp/1596985569

[wigon]

Its not a question of fear. It's a question of resolving a problem. Does a fireman have to ask, perhaps I am too afraid of fire?

Whether I go into politics or not, we will see. The government in Indonesia is moderate. If a jihadi government gets in, God help us. There have also been plenty of christians hacked up in fighting in Indonesia.

There is not a lot of point debating specifics with you however, I think.

Have a read of this book, just a read...you can say, its all bs, i hate the guy whatever..but take into account these things and then make up your mind. If you're short on dough, send me a PM and Ill mail it too you.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260131/ref=ase_robertspencer-20/103-1603172-8127010?v=glance&s=books

He's got a new one coming out too (which will no doubt earn him a few more death threats):

http://www.amazon.com/Stealth-Jihad-Radical-Subverting-America/dp/1596985569


Fear is a HUGE part of providing the context of the problem or even determining if there is a problem. Does a fireman spray water inside a house because he thinks that there MIGHT be a fire in the near future because there is a smoker living in the house?
Please keep in mind the art of controlling the context of an issue. This is politics 101 regarding manipulating public perception. When you at the onset of a debate put forth the context that the debate is set in, you essentially control the entire discourse. To an audience that is unaware of the issues regarding the context, their perceptions and beliefs can be easily manipulated.

Since you're in Australia, take a trip up North and spend some time in Indonesia. Hang out at mosques...talk to some Imams there. Spend time talking to Christians. Yeah a bunch of Christians were hacked up like in East Timor...but that had very little to do with religion and much more to do with ethnic conflict and territorial power. Same reason why many Javanese hate people of Chinese ethnicity with a passion although that has to do more with economic inequality and the historic failed communist coup attempt which led to a MASSIVE American supported genocide of suspected communists and people of Chinese descent.
Keep in mind that alot of Muslims have been hacked to death as well in the vast range of conflicts spread over the Indonesian archipelego. Remember the Ache rebellion? Took that damn Tsunami to finally get peace there. God works in mysterious ways!

I've read the first Robert Spencer book that you mentioned and I am EXTREMELY well versed in Robert Spencer's fear mongoring over the years. Now to be fair, to a very limited extent he is right. But he portrays things in black and white and with massive generalizations that really distort the Islamic world. He also is often not very consistent. Sometimes we almost agree on things and other times he backpeddles or changes his mind because he read something recently that causes him to think a bit more on a particular issue. That's not a bad thing, but its unnerving sometimes as I'm not always sure what his true beliefs are. But then again sometimes I do the same thing. Fixed perceptions are dangerous in a constantly changing universe.

I posted alot on his forums but was driven off by former Salafi's who became athiests....these guys were good (most likely former Salafi Imams)....they brought up every obscure Islamic scholar imaginable and mostly those with no English translations. They accused me of being a "secret Muslim" and kept insisting I was part of some obscure Muslim group in Pakistan. It was pretty helarious, but I got tired of the personal attacks and wasting time repeating myself over and over because they weren't reading my posts and would just gang up making tons of personal attacks and accusations. I was just wasting time there debating with those guys. But it was a learning experience as I started to understand the types of Muslims (or former Muslims) who are giving Mr. Spencer his knowledge on Islam.
Aside from Mr. Spencer, I am also very familiar with Bernard Lewis and Serge Trifkovic. Do not think I haven't very intensely studied their arguements and compared them to traditional historical Islamic literature.
I've also often questioned respected Islamic scholars with many of the accusations that neocons like Robert Spencer make towards Muslims.

If you put forth specific issues, I can give you specific answers. But yeah no worries, I've taken the time to read the neocon literature on Islam. To be quite honest I see Robert Spencer as one of the most dangerous men in Washington D.C. right now. He has massive amounts of influence and ironically gives almost IDENTICAL arguements as Al-Qaeda scholars do. In essence he portrays Al-Qaeda and similar Islamic extremists as the true Muslims and legitimizes them. These extremists love him.
I've been trying to get that through his thick head but Mr. Spencer won't listen. He essentially creates self-fullfilling prophecy by also insulting Muslims and getting a few wackos to issue death threats against him. He thus verifies in his own head that he is right that Muslims are savages and need to be changed or killed off. In psychology we call this self-fullfilling prophecy. It is a very basic human behavior which is why motivational speakers preach positive thinking. Think and act positive...and lo and behold...your life tends to not suck so bad. But on the flipside, if you live your life in paranoia, fear, and hatred.....well you'll probably live a mostly unhappy life and die from a heart attack. Its not rocket science.... just basic psychology.

Or.... maybe he knows exactly what he's doing and realizes that marketing fear = fame, fortune, and political power.

Wigon

[Calanen]

If you put forth specific issues, I can give you specific answers. But yeah no worries, I've taken the time to read the neocon literature on Islam. To be quite honest I see Robert Spencer as one of the most dangerous men in Washington D.C. right now. He has massive amounts of influence and ironically gives almost IDENTICAL arguements as Al-Qaeda scholars do. In essence he portrays Al-Qaeda and similar Islamic extremists as the true Muslims and legitimizes them. These extremists love him.


I don't think they do. He was specifically mentioned as being targetted for death in an Al Quada video. I cant post the video here because its propaganda, but trust me on that one.

Robert Spencer's arguments are cross-referenced, sourced, defensible from a logical standpoint and in my view very sensible. I'm reasonably well educated, and I can rarely find fault with them. I don't like the blogs that go over the top about things, but I agree with most of what he has to say.

There is way too much PC crap going on, and the public are tired of it. Trying to present the Islamic world as some benign friendly exotic place - when sharia is barbaric, women are second class citizens, people of other religions are not tolerated and actively persecuted, and there is a huge culture of jihad. Thats fine as long as it stays in the Islamic world - but I dont want any of it here. And frankly you shouldn't either. To believe that importing people with that point of view and upon arrival in the West they will suddenly and miraculously not follow that anymore is naive in the extreme.

The fact that not all muslims do anything is not important - the fact that some are, and why they are is the real issue. And we are chasing our own tails trying to say its something that we have done. Like the wife who is beaten by her husband, if she only behaves better - perhaps he will stop beating her...it never works that way, she can never be good enough to stop.

Have you read any of Spencer's books? I bet the answer is No. My offer still stands to send you a copy, it would be my pleasure.

[wigon]

As I stated again, yes I did read that book and again if you state a particular point he makes I can likely refute it....or maybe I'll agree with him. Depends on what the point is.

I agree that his points sound perfectly logical and backed up with references....until you explore those references and consult with REAL Islamic scholars rather then ONLY Salafi scholars. He fails to explore the complex and diverse width of Islamic thought and interpretation.

It's not at all about being PC. I agree with you 100% about keeping out wackos who rant and rave about Jihad. The United States has overall done a good job at kicking such people out. Those few extremists that have citizenship, they keep under very high surveillance along with anyone they associate with. But overall the few homegrown Muslims that have been caught have either been proven to have been wrongly accused and released or they are now in jail. Some weren't even Muslim like the ones in Miami who belonged to some bizarre cult that blended all kinds of religions together including Islam. They were wrongly called "Muslim" by the media....something that was never corrected.

Quite frankly when I have better chances of winning the lottery then being killed in a terrorist attack, I don't lose sleep over them. Neither should you. But maybe there in Australia you got mobs chanting for Jihad to destroy Australia. If so, that's a problem with your nation's policies. We don't have that problem here. We limit our freedom of speech unless its about killing abortion doctors or if its done in the format of the TV show "South Park"...then its all good.

Again... as for the horrors of ultra-conservative and rigid interpretations of Islamic law...those are not the dominant form of Islamic interpetation in all nations populated by Muslims.
Women as 2nd class citizens for example. Where I live, wife beating is like a national pastime amongst the poor and working class. Domestic abuse is one of the main types of calls that police get....and the vast majority is all Christian on Christian wife beating. You can justify it with the Bible as well. More progressive Islamic nations have women on their panel of Islamic judges that tend to put in jail men who really abuse their wife. They also can quite easily encourage her to divorce her husband if he is not fullfilling his role as a husband properly in the relationship.
Yes I know there is a verse about wife beating in the Qu'ran. However Hadiths clearly state it can be no harder then to hit with a "Miswak" which is a small twig used to clean the teeth. For the most part only extreme Salafi digress from general agreement amongst scholars on that issue. The main debate is seen on Saudi TV and is quite embarassing for more modern thinking Saudis Much of the wife beating is more due to general dominace over women in tribal cultures such as those found in many Arab countries and in Iran, India and Pakistan. In very "machismo" cultures this is usually the case. In addition, very often in Salafi Islamic courts, women are not given proper legal council and have no idea of their rights under Shariat law. Worse they are generally judged by an all male panel of Islamic scholars.
Many countries are fixing this problem such as in Morocco, Malaysia, and Indonesia where female scholars play an important role in Shariat courts. In Indonesia at least however, the shariat courts are limited to family law.
Anyways...I know you did not directly mention beatings in Islam...but since you said women are 2nd class citizens in Islam and made the little comparison to a wife who's beaten I thought I'd bring it up. Women generally speaking in most of the developing world are 2nd class citizens by the way....Muslim or non-Muslim.

Wigon

[Calanen]

As I stated again, yes I did read that book and again if you state a particular point he makes I can likely refute it....or maybe I'll agree with him. Depends on what the point is.

Ok, well I will buy you the Stealth Jihad book when it comes out.


I agree that his points sound perfectly logical and backed up with references....until you explore those references and consult with REAL Islamic scholars rather then ONLY Salafi scholars. He fails to explore the complex and diverse width of Islamic thought and interpretation.

I've watched him debate with Islamic scholars, and he carves them up like a hot knife through butter. If you can point to me a different example, I would be glad to have a look.


It's not at all about being PC. I agree with you 100% about keeping out wackos who rant and rave about Jihad. The United States has overall done a good job at kicking such people out.

Well its the wackos that don't rant and rave that are far more dangerous. The people who do all this behind closed doors and keep their mouths shut. That's who worries me.


Those few extremists that have citizenship, they keep under very high surveillance along with anyone they associate with.

They are the people who mouth off. What about the people who keep it on the lowdown?


But overall the few homegrown Muslims that have been caught have either been proven to have been wrongly accused and released or they are now in jail.

Don't know where you got this from. Did you see the list of all the people charged and convicted I posted in the Islamization thread? Very long list.



Some weren't even Muslim like the ones in Miami who belonged to some bizarre cult that blended all kinds of religions together including Islam. They were wrongly called "Muslim" by the media....something that was never corrected.



Mistakes will be made in any law enforcement process. Doesnt mean you throw the process away or that it was not necessary.


Quite frankly when I have better chances of winning the lottery then being killed in a terrorist attack, I don't lose sleep over them.

I'm not even slightly troubled by terrorist attacks. The terrorist attacks themselves have a worse effect on the economy than on the people they kill.

That aside, the attack on institutions, beliefs, cultures in the West is far more of a threat than anyone dying in terrorism. Thats predominanytly what I am concerned about.




Neither should you. But maybe there in Australia you got mobs chanting for Jihad to destroy Australia. If so, that's a problem with your nation's policies. We don't have that problem here.


The one time we had it was in the revenge attacks for the Cronulla riots in December 2005. As the muslims were allowed to get away with that, it set a bad precedent. It is likely to happen again here - the question is only when?


We limit our freedom of speech unless its about killing abortion doctors or if its done in the format of the TV show "South Park"...then its all good.

Im not sure what you mean. South Park makes a lot of fun of Jesus, and other religions. They dont dare make fun of Mohammed. Self-censorship because of them being scared of the outcome.


Again... as for the horrors of ultra-conservative and rigid interpretations of Islamic law...those are not the dominant form of Islamic interpetation in all nations populated by Muslims.

What do you base this on?


Women as 2nd class citizens for example. Where I live, wife beating is like a national pastime amongst the poor and working class. Domestic abuse is one of the main types of calls that police get....and the vast majority is all Christian on Christian wife beating. You can justify it with the Bible as well.

But are there talkshows in the Christian bible belt approving wife beating? There certainly are on Arab TV.


More progressive Islamic nations have women on their panel of Islamic judges that tend to put in jail men who really abuse their wife. They also can quite easily encourage her to divorce her husband if he is not fullfilling his role as a husband properly in the relationship.

Which progressive Islamic nations are you referring to? Whatever way you cut it, women's human rights are far more trampled on in the muslim world than they are in the west. And those rights continue to be trampled on, when muslim women come to the west.


Yes I know there is a verse about wife beating in the Qu'ran. However Hadiths clearly state it can be no harder then to hit with a "Miswak" which is a small twig used to clean the teeth.

So light beating is OK? Would a wife even notice being beaten with a twig? Women are also essentially just baby factories in those places, limited role in public life, and more likely to be treated on an inferior basis in the courts. You need a number of male witnesses to prove rape, and women who are raped are charged with adultery..all of that silliness.

You seem like you have a bit of an Alison Wonderland view of all this - you can visit a muslim country and people will be friendly to you, no problem. But once there are sufficient numbers in a land with signficant christians or other religions - the calls to jihad eventually follows. But they are mostly not suicidal, they are not going to make that call before they are ready.

[wigon]

Dude, I mentioned the countries with the women Islamic scholars on their courts if you had bothered to read my rsponse carefully. Morocco, Indonesia, and Malaysia. There are probably other countries as well. Those are just the ones I know of.

As for being hit by a twig, have you ever gotten hit by a fresh green switch (long green twig) by your momma? I know I have and it HURTS! I got beat with a belt as well by my Dad but that's not Islamic. In any case, whatever is used can not leave a bruise or draw blood. You are right bible belt Christian TV shows do not talk about beating your wife, but they have talked about the importance of beating your kids as discipline.

As for the people tried and convicted, can you give me a link for that thread? I've only seen a small handful of cases in the media.

Finally as for what I said about the dominant forms of Islamic interpretation... I base that on..... actually living and travelling in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Bahran) and on living in Indonesia, the largest Islamic nation in the world. Yes Saudi was a bit extreme. Egypt a bit less so. Indonesia...very liberal compared to Saudi.
Aside from that I have spent an enormous amount of time amongst Muslims from every part of the world where I live including Saudis, Egyptians Omanis, Moroccans, Indonesians, Malaysians, Pakistanis, Muslim Indians, Muslim Russians, Afghanis, Iraqis, and probably a bunch more I'm forgetting. Oh yeah I can't forget good ol' American converts. :)
Overall I think I have a pretty good understanding of these issues and have foreign Muslim friends with Muslim wives who I talk to freely. Why? Because they know I talk to their wives respectfully and don't try to flirt with them. I encourage you to talk to Muslims more yourself, especially Muslim women to find out how horrifically oppressed they are. Are some oppressed sometimes? Oh absolutely. Are some Western women oppressed sometimes? Oh hell yeah. Truth be told, it's a man's world out there anywhere you go. It's not easy being a woman.


Wigon

[ggk]

again with this 'stealth jiiiihad' and 'jiiihad indoctrination'...Calanen please at least look and digest other people opinion instead of bashing it imediately...you should give the benefit of the doubt.


So light beating is OK? Would a wife even notice being beaten with a twig? Women are also essentially just baby factories in those places, limited role in public life, and more likely to be treated on an inferior basis in the courts.

its a weird tribe tradition calanen modern muslim dont beat their wife. i dont.


You need a number of male witnesses to prove rape, and women who are raped are charged with adultery..all of that silliness.

this shows your lack of knowledge in sharia law...but then again thanks to you this is one part of the law that were indeed a taboo even among muslim. Thanks for pointing this out.

the 4 witneses were indeed required in rape cases as told in Quran. But when the witneses were un credible or they gave conflicting statement..indeed they will be thrown out from the case...so the question is does the woman be punished? the answer is not calanen.

and before you start quoting a thousand year old syaria law quote, let me remind you this is the present time...sharia law have evolved..we just dont simply use the old law literally anymore.

because now in the advent of forensic technology there are better way to prove rape and crime..and sharia lawa were modified to iclude that to get the utmost justice.

Now there are some moronic nation who are still implementing the old law...mostly because these country were indeed very undevelope and poor , resulting the lack of law maker and practitioners. But a lot of Islamic country didnt use the old law,....even more so some even use the secular common law instead of sharia law.



You seem like you have a bit of an Alison Wonderland view of all this - you can visit a muslim country and people will be friendly to you, no problem. But once there are sufficient numbers in a land with signficant christians or other religions - the calls to jihad eventually follows. But they are mostly not suicidal, they are not going to make that call before they are ready.


lastly there is no such this as UFO, Government conspiracy, and stealth jihad.

[Calanen]

Dude, I mentioned the countries with the women Islamic scholars on their courts if you had bothered to read my rsponse carefully. Morocco, Indonesia, and Malaysia. There are probably other countries as well. Those are just the ones I know of.

No need to jump down my throat. When you said:


More progressive Islamic nations have women on their panel of Islamic judges that tend to put in jail men who really abuse their wife.

I did not know whether that included or was exclusive of where you had mentioned. Now I do.


As for being hit by a twig, have you ever gotten hit by a fresh green switch (long green twig) by your momma? I know I have and it HURTS! I got beat with a belt as well by my Dad but that's not Islamic.

Thats a different debate. My own view is that children should never be hit, except perhaps when they are very young for a swift smack on the butt when all else fails. But that's a different debate.



In any case, whatever is used can not leave a bruise or draw blood. You are right bible belt Christian TV shows do not talk about beating your wife, but they have talked about the importance of beating your kids as discipline.



And I disagree with that practice, at the end of the day, it doesnt mater what christianity does when confronting the problems of political islam.


As for the people tried and convicted, can you give me a link for that thread? I've only seen a small handful of cases in the media.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=137701&page=3


Finally as for what I said about the dominant forms of Islamic interpretation... I base that on..... actually living and travelling in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Bahran) and on living in Indonesia, the largest Islamic nation in the world. Yes Saudi was a bit extreme. Egypt a bit less so. Indonesia...very liberal compared to Saudi.

Its a very diffrent thing living as an infidel with no hands on the levers of power in an islamic country, to being an infidel that has a sizeable population of believers in that infidel country. Nigeria, Sudan, India, Indonesia, Phillippines, Lebanon, on it goes...large populations of infidels mixed with muslims inevitably come to blows .




Aside from that I have spent an enormous amount of time amongst Muslims from every part of the world where I live including Saudis, Egyptians Omanis, Moroccans, Indonesians, Malaysians, Pakistanis, Muslim Indians, Muslim Russians, Afghanis, Iraqis, and probably a bunch more I'm forgetting. Oh yeah I can't forget good ol' American converts. :)


I think you are seeing things from the perspective of the hospitality shown to a guest in a place where muslims are in control, and not as someone at the pointy end. Live as a Christian in Lebanon, Iran or Gaza, see things from a different perspective.

[wigon]

Again I've lived as in "infidel" in freak'n Saudi Arabia. Only my Mom had problems with religious police there (who smacked her ankle with a stick for showing ankle skin) and I won't arge that they don't have serioius issues regarding women's rights. But again, I will repeat... All over the world women have serious human rights issues. It's not simply a "Muslim problem" and you can not judge all Islamic countries as all being the same.
In addition Saudi Arabia is NOT the horrific evil den of satanic KILL WHITEY fanatics as you seem to envision. I was fortunate enough to have experienced what most Americans never get a chance to see which was traditional desert bedhoin culture and hospitality. Nowhere in the world have I met such generous people despite their fairly impoverished existence. They will quite literally give you the shirt off their back if you needed it as a matter of personal honor. Of coarse they'd also kill you just as quick if you disrespect them. lol. Any Alabama redneck farmer would feel right at home with such people as he would recognize genuine hospitality and real salt of the earth people. I was surprised that some of their women also didn't wear the full black shadorah covering and just covered their hair with a light hijab. They do too much manual labor to be wearing those things. Sadly many of those tribes have disappeared now thanks to pressures from globalization.
But I also met plenty of very wonderful Saudis in the cities as well. There are good people and bad people everywhere you look. Alot of good people just do bad things with good intentions.
I'm all for helping to stop the promotion of hatred and have spent the last 6 years in the endeavor to stop that. What makes you and I different (or at least one of the many things) is we go about this goal in very very different manners. I do it through understanding and trying to change culture from within using traditional values found in that culture. But then again I'm a cultural anthropologist. We specialize in the study of culture. As an applied anthropologist I put that knowledge to work. You on the other hand prefer to demonize something you don't fully understand and do not seem to have direct experience with. Or you create your own negative self fullfilling prophecy by attacking Muslims and thus getting very nasty response from them which validates your views about them.
It doesn't mean you are a bad person. You are just human and I, nor anyone else is better or worse then you in that regard.
We all have life experiences, environment, culture, family, and genetics that shape who and what we are. Once you learn to accept that other people's realities are NOT the same as your reality due to these differences. Then you begin to realize that it is pointless to try and force your reality upon others. The same goes for Islamic extremists and I explain things to them in much the same manner. But generally I develop a better relationship with them first by asking them to teach me about their religion.

At any rate... once again I have to repeat myself in that I have not seen these horrible religious battles in the countries I've been to. Yes all countries have ethnic/religious conflict including the mighty United States of America. We were founded upon over two centuries of blood, sweat, and tears caused by countless battles and violence between races and religions. As you well know, Australia likewise has had its very painful conflicts and bloodshed dealing with Aboriginal cultures and beliefs.
Would you like to eradicate all the angry aborigines who yell "KILL WHITEY!" because they blame you for all their social and economic problems ????
So anyhoo.. yeah I lived at the "pointy end" as you call it, in Muslim countries.

As for that list of all those Muslim terrorists you posted. That was put together originally by JihadWatch. Upon looking at those cases, very few show whether the person was convicted or if they were found innocent. So that big list is not what I would call damning evidence. It is what I would call something perfectly normal given the fact that yes you will have a few crazy Islamic extremists who DO exist and yes, a small group of them WILL try to carry out terrorist attacks. In addition alot of those arrested were accused of sending money to Hamas... on often very jacked up charges which could apply to almost ANYONE sending oney to ANY group in Gaza or the West Bank as almost every non-profit medical/religioius group is associated in some manner with Hamas or other terrorist organizations there. If you give it directly to Fatah....it'll just go in some Fatah politician's pocket.

So... I'm sorry no evidence of grand conpiracies of vast cells of Muslims working cleverly to bring down Western civilization. Would most devout Muslims like Shariat Law? Most of them would say yes. But then when you ask them specific questions, about whether they support the Saudi or Iranian interpretations of Shariat law...ah...then you realize that they don't really understand it or that they want a modern version of Shariat law. So essentially laws that are in the spirit of the Shariat.
American law has very strong foundations in Biblical Law (very similar and often harsher then Shariat Law) it just has been whittled away over the years in cases that call into question separation between Church and State. Alot of fundamentalist Christians are ironically calling for many of the same changes in the laws that Muslims would like to see.
That's why I've always had a good laugh about Christians being so fearful of even modern versions of Shariat law, espeically here in America where such things as the death penalty are still common in many states.

But for us, it is a moot point. There is no demographic evidence that Muslims will become a majority any time soon or ever for that matter.
Attacking someone's religion is not what creates change. Was it the Protestant reformation that resulted in the scientific revolutions? In some ways yes...but it was open minded religious people who broke the university systems away from the churches in order to establish freedom of thought and ideas. These were not athiests but rather often highly religous people who challenged the Church from within. This is what we need to inspire in Muslims. To do this we MUST respect good Muslims and try to understand their religion in order to encourage them to adapt to modern times as what is best for them and to encourage them in tolerant interpretations of their religion rather then ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK! and FEAR THEM FEAR THEM FEAR THEM FEAR THEM....
I find such attitudes personally to be cowardly and self-defeating.
It's alot easier to rally the masses for war (not to mention politically empowering) then it is to strive for peace and mutual understanding and respect.

Wigon